What's New

On Friday, March 10, 2006 the UN Commission on the Status of Women -- the UN's highest body dealing with women's rights -- adopted only one resolution that specifically condemned the abuse of women's rights by any of the 191 UN member states. That state was Israel.

There was no resolution on Saudi Arabia and the million female migrant workers living in slave-like conditions there. There was no mention of Jordan, home to the phenomenon of "honor killings" -- the alleged entitlement to murder female relatives. Nothing on China, land of forced abortions and sterilizations. Nothing on Mali's appalling record on female genital mutilation. No mention of Palestinian women who volunteer to be suicide bombers in order to kill Jews. And of course, no mention of the Israeli women and girls who are their victims.

The Commission on the Status of Women makes it abundantly clear that the victims of the UN's obsession with demonizing the Jewish state go far beyond Israelis. They are the billions of women around the world who cannot garner the attention of this organization because it is otherwise occupied.

Anne Bayefsky

On Friday, March 10, 2006 the UN Commission on the Status of Women -- the UN's highest body dealing with women's rights -- adopted only one resolution that specifically condemned the abuse of women's rights by any of the 191 UN member states. That state was Israel.

Here is the attempt by UN General Assembly President Jan Eliasson and other UN members to isolate the United States on the proposed Human Rights Council. You know how bad the Council has become when South Africa, speaking on behalf of the bloc containing most every despotic regime in the UN General Assembly, says it is enthusiastic about the resolution and is keen to adopt it. Then of course, why would they object to a new human rights body that hands them even more power than the previous Commission? (AB)

This is the same Irene Khan, secretary-general of Amnesty International, that refused to vote against the 2001 Durban NGO Declaration that said Zionism is racism. This is also the same Irene Khan who said in the foreword to the organization's 2005 annual report: "The detention facility at Guantánamo Bay has become the gulag of our times...." Her credibility about recognizing an effective human rights instrument is dubious, to say the least - unless a new UN Human Rights Council which is certain to put the U.S. in the enemy camp and increase the demonization of Israel is the goal.

In preparation for the session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, still scheduled to start March 13, 2006, the UN released the annual report of South African lawyer John Dugard. He is the UN Special Rapporteur or investigator on Israel. His UN mandate was created by the discredited UN Commission on Human Rights so as to specifically exclude any consideration of violations of international law or human rights by Palestinians. This clearly suits Dugard just fine. Speaking in this report he reminds us, without concern: "It does not fall within the mandate of the Special Rapporteur to comment on the state of human rights in Gaza under the administration of the Palestinian Authority." and "The Special Rapporteur's mandate does not extend to human rights violations committed by the Palestinian Authority." So with relish this UN official proceeds to attack Israel with a level of vitriol only explained by his support for a one-state solution, that is, the end of the Jewish state.

Here are some examples of Dugard's venom, hysterical even by UN standards:

the Jewish problem: "Words cannot convey the hardships to which Palestinians are subjected in the interests of the Judaization of Jerusalem."

the one-state solution: "Interlocutors [have] warned the Special Rapporteur that with the two State solution becoming increasingly difficult, if not impossible, consideration should be given to the establishment of a binational State." - (whereupon Dugard suggests the reader refer to a book entitled "The One State Solution")

the Israeli checkpoint without a purpose (after 5 wars launched by Israel's neighbours and years of terrorism originating in the territories): "It is difficult to overestimate the harm done to Israeli Palestinian relations by checkpoints. They are arbitrary, humiliating and intimidating. They are the primary cause of poverty and economic depression in the West Bank. And they are installed not for the security of Israel itself but to protect the hated settlers on Palestinian territory."

the wildly inflammatory claim (without a single example or source): "Palestinian women are...subjected to sexual violence by both soldiers and settlers."

disregard of the Security Council and the Quartet: "the Security Council and the United Nations as a participant in the Quartet are engaged in a strategy of political appeasement, in which respect for human rights, international humanitarian law and the rule of law have less importance."

rejection of the Road Map, the agreed-upon path of the actual parties: "The road map...is hopelessly out of date...[T]here is a need for a new road map"

John Dugard – mandate created, and appointed, by the UN Commission on Human Rights – is an outstanding example of why this institution is discredited. He has been given UN diplomatic license to encourage intolerance and violence. To borrow a phrase, it is hard to overestimate the harm such an individual does to the cause of the international protection of human rights.

Anne Bayefsky

In preparation for the session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, still scheduled to start March 13, 2006, the UN released the annual report of South African lawyer John Dugard. He is the UN Special Rapporteur or investigator on Israel. His UN mandate was created by the discredited UN Commission on Human Rights so as to specifically exclude any consideration of violations of international law or human rights by Palestinians. This clearly suits Dugard just fine. Speaking in this report he reminds us, without concern: "It does not fall within the mandate of the Special Rapporteur to comment on the state of human rights in Gaza under the administration of the Palestinian Authority." and "The Special Rapporteur's mandate does not extend to human rights violations committed by the Palestinian Authority." So with relish this UN official proceeds to attack Israel with a level of vitriol only explained by his support for a one-state solution, that is, the end of the Jewish state.

Another UN criticism of Israel's exercise of the right of self-defense, highlighted in another UN news release. The story line is "cycle" of violations, but if there was no Hizbullah, there would no Israeli response.

Another UN body, another forum dedicated to demonizing the Jewish state. This time it was the annual meeting of the Commission on the Status of Women. Here is a transcript of events on Friday, March 3rd. The transcript begins with the Israeli delegate replying to an earlier Palestinian statement. The Palestinian statement alleges various problems encountered by Palestinian women at checkpoints without mentioning the pattern of Palestinian women acting as human bombs. When the Israeli delegate took the floor to describe the threat posed by female Palestinian suicide bombers she was cut off by the acting chairwoman, who suddenly decided to strictly enforce the time limit. The Palestinian delegate replied by criticizing Israel's killing of civilians, in what appeared from the speech to be a wanton, random act. The delegate neglected to mention the use of civilians by Palestinian terrorists as human shields, or any context. UN delegates reacted by breaking into applause.

The UN Department of Public Information (DPI) trains the Palestinian media. Given the Palestinian media is rife with glorifications of violence and anti-semitism, do you think the UN gives them sensitivity training to other cultures (Universal Declaration on Human Rights 101) as part of "a perspective not otherwise readily available to them"?

The UN effort to demonize the state of Israel - with its direct consequences for the spread of hatred against Jews and terrorism - continues at the annual UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW). All over the world women suffer horrible conditions, like slavery, trafficking, honor killings, female genital mutilation. And who does the UN CSW decide to condemn? Only Israel. Needless to say there is no mention of the terrorists who habitually turn Palestinian women and children into human shields, or the Israeli women blown up or mangled by the real enemies of civilization.

March 7, 2006 the UN representative of the United Arab Emirates circulated a letter around the UN with the explicit blessing of the President of the UAE. The letter was given a February 16th publication date but appears to have been held back and distributed for the first time March 7th. It states that the UAE President presided over the Council that produced a document which includes the following refusal to categorically reject terrorism:

"The Supreme Council reiterated its appeals and support for all regional and international efforts to combat terrorism through the clarification and coordination of positions on a definition of terrorism, distinguishing it from the legitimate right of peoples to oppose occupation without the spilling of innocent blood."

Given the looming U.S. port deal, it is time to ask the President of the UAE, who exactly is "innocent"? Does that include American soldiers in Iraq? Which Israelis do they think they are entitled to blow up?

The members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, who produced this document, are all members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). On Friday, March 3rd, the OIC scuttled a deal on a UN comprehensive convention against terrorism. The specific point of contention is a definition of terrorism and the aim of the OIC, as is true of the UAE document, is to define terrorism in such a way as to permit killing whomever they believe is not innocent. We see the effects of such a policy every day across the globe. The terrorism treaties of the OIC and the Arab League make the diplomatic double-talk evident. Their definition of terrorism, to which all these states are legal parties, excludes armed struggle for liberation and self-determination. In plain English, that makes Americans and Israelis fair game.

Why would the UAE so unabashedly circulate such a document at this sensitive moment in time? The chokehold of the OIC on the UN has led them to believe that the organization is its private playing field. They're right.

Anne Bayefsky

March 7, 2006 the UN representative of the United Arab Emirates circulated a letter around the UN with the explicit blessing of the President of the UAE. The letter was given a February 16th publication date but appears to have been held back and distributed for the first time March 7th. It states that the UAE President presided over the Council that produced a document which includes the following refusal to categorically reject terrorism:

"The Supreme Council reiterated its appeals and support for all regional and international efforts to combat terrorism through the clarification and coordination of positions on a definition of terrorism, distinguishing it from the legitimate right of peoples to oppose occupation without the spilling of innocent blood."

Here is how the UN press department describes a key meeting on terrorism which was a total failure. There was no agreement even on how to proceed to the next step in negotiations over a comprehensive convention against terrorism, as a result of Pakistani and Syrian objections. (The Organization of the Islamic Conference thinks blowing up Israeli men, women and children shouldn't count.)

Here you have it directly from the head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, on what he thinks should be done about Iran. After all these years watching Iran's sprint towards the acquisition of nuclear weapons, the most he can summon up is "after three years of intensive verification, there remain uncertainties with regard to both the scope and the nature of Iran's nuclear programme. As I mentioned in my report, this is a matter of concern that continues to give rise to questions about the past and current direction of Iran's nuclear programme.For confidence to be built in the peaceful nature of Iran's programme, Iran should do its utmost to provide maximum transparency and build confidence. Only through clarification of all questions relevant to Iran's past programme and through confidence building measures can confidence about Iran's current nuclear activities be restored." So the only real question that remains is, why is the Bush administration wasting another 5 minutes on the IAEA? (And for the history books, why did they agree to ElBaradei's reappointment last June?)

UN's ElBaradei once again moving the world towards Iranian nuclear weapons. Trying desperately to keep Iran off the Security Council agenda as a matter threatening international peace and security (the Council's supposed job), ElBaradei says "confrontation (between the West and Iran) could be counterproductive." From where the UN sits, confrontation does not already exist by virtue of Iran's genocidal leadership making a dash for nuclear weapons, but by the West taking actions to stop them. That's his idea of counterproductive. The IAEA needs a new name "the Neville Chamberlain school of nuclear non-proliferation."